Grover, Natalie S.

TPS7100 Background: Despite the promising efficacy of CAR-T for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphomas (LBCL), more than 60% of patients will relapse, the majority of which occur in the first 6 months. Approximately 30% of patients with LBCL treated with CAR-T achieve a partial response (PR) on day 30 (D30) PET-CT assessment. Of patients in a D30 PR, 70% will eventually progress, yet the standard of care remains close observation. Early consolidative treatment strategies utilizing therapies with a different mechanism of action may improve outcomes, but there are currently no reliable biomarkers. Epcoritamab (Epco), a bispecific antibody directed against CD20 and CD3, has been approved by the FDA for LBCL patients who relapse after at least 2 lines of therapy. In the phase 2 study, Epco was associated with an overall response rate (ORR) of 63% and a complete response (CR) rate of 39%, including similar responses in a subset of patients who were relapsed 100 days post CAR-T. This study is a trial-in-progress that will evaluate the efficacy of epco compared to observation for patients with LBCLs achieving a PR on D30 post CAR-T PET-CT assessment. Methods: This is an investigator-initiated, randomized, phase II, multicenter, open-label study (NCT06238648) evaluating epco monotherapy for a fixed duration of 12 cycles compared to observation for LBCL patients with D30 PR after standard of care CAR-T. A maximum of 120 patients will be randomized 1:1 to epco or observation across 10 academic centers. Stratification factors include line of CAR-T (second vs third line) and costimulatory domain (CD28 vs 4-1BB). Key inclusion criteria include PET evidence of a D30 PR. non-bulky disease ( <7.5cm), ANC of >1000, hemoglobin >7 g/dL if asymptomatic or >8 if symptomatic, platelet count >50,000. G-CSF, pRBCs and platelet transfusions are allowed. Key exclusion criteria include prior anti CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody therapy, ongoing or uncontrolled CRS or ICANS, and active or symptomatic CNS disease. Epco is administered subcutaneously at a dose of 0.16mg on day 1, 0.8mg on day 8, prior to full dose of 48mg on day 15. Epco is administered weekly in 28 day cycles (C) for C1-3, on day 1 and 15 of C4-9 and on day 1 of C10-12. PET-CT response is assessed by the 2014 Lugano criteria after 2 cycles, and then every 3 months during active treatment. The primary objective is efficacy, measured as conversion from D30 PR to CR. The secondary endpoints include frequency and severity of treatment emergent adverse events, ORR, duration of response, duration of complete response, progression free survival, event free survival, and overall survival. Peripheral blood samples will be collected pre-treatment and during treatment to assess for biomarkers of response and resistance. The study was activated in January 2024 and recruitment is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT06238648 .

Background: Chemotherapy in combination with radiotherapy (RT) is the standard for early-stage (ES) Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Despite high cure rates (12-year overall survival (OS) &gt;93%), there is room to improve short and long-term outcomes for children and adults with ES cHL. Incorporation of immunotherapy (IO) into front line treatment of ES cHL is an opportunity to both improve progression-free survival (PFS) and maintain OS, while minimizing long-term morbidity and mortality by reducing exposure to RT and high-dose chemotherapy. Study Design and Methods: HL leaders of the NCTN groups, expert HL researchers and physicians, and representatives from the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) formed a working group in April 2020 with the goals of harmonizing treatment approaches for ES cHL across pediatric and adult patients and reaching consensus regarding the optimal study design for incorporating IO therapy into frontline treatment. Study champions identified from each of the North American cooperative groups [Children's Oncology Group (COG), SWOG, ECOG-ACRIN, Alliance, NRG] and experts in imaging, radiation oncology, lymphoma biology and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were included. The resulting COG-led clinical trial, AHOD2131, represents the largest ES cHL trial in the history of North American cooperative groups and the first to enroll patients across the age continuum. AHOD2131 (NCT05675410; Figure) is a randomized, phase 3 trial enrolling patients ages 5 to 60 years with newly diagnosed, previously untreated stage I and II cHL and will investigate the addition of the CD30-antibody drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (Bv) with PD-1 blockade (nivolumab) compared to standard chemotherapy +/- RT. Since the April 2023 activation, 97 North American sites have activated the trial, and 21 participants have enrolled. Target enrollment is 1875 patients over 5 years of accrual, for an estimated 1782 eligible and evaluable patients. The primary objective is to compare the 3-year PFS of patients with ES cHL treated through a response-adapted, superiority design with either standard therapy or with an IO approach (BV + nivolumab). All patients will be stratified as favorable or unfavorable based on disease risk features at enrollment. Based on initial response assessment by PET/CT (via central review) after 2 cycles of ABVD, patients were classified to PET2 positive (SER, defined as 5 Point Score 4 or 5, ~15% of patients) and PET negative (RER). Those who are PET positive will receive involved site RT (ISRT). The SER and RER patients will be randomized to standard chemotherapy vs. IO therapy respectively. In addition to the primary outcome of PFS, there are 11 secondary and 10 exploratory aims. The secondary aims focus on OS, PFS of subgroups, and event-free survival at 12 years, physician-reported treatment-related adverse event (AE) rates, patient-reported AE using pediatric and adult versions of Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and the capture of representation by self-report and the use of electronic PRO data collections. The exploratory aims include the assessment of imaging central review as compared to local institutional review and the use of convolutional neural networks through artificial-intelligence machine learning. The study will examine the effect of therapy on acute and long-term adverse effects including health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and OS for up to 12 years. The study will compare patient self-report and provider AE reports and evaluate the associations of self-reported race/ethnicity and social determinants of health (SDOH)and post-progression/post-relapse OS. AHOD2131 strengthens the effort between the North American cooperative groups to conduct collaborative clinical trials and aims to harmonize an improved standard of care for ES cHL across the age continuum.

Background: Event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) after frontline immunochemotherapy (IC) is an important endpoint in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma, and patients who achieve EFS24 have similar survival compared to age- and sex-matched general population. The role of EFS24 in predicting subsequent survival has not been established in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), possibly due to perceived poor survival historically. In the last decade, the outcomes of MCL are improving in the evolving treatment landscape. In this international multicenter study, we investigated conditional survival and cause of death in patients with MCL who achieved EFS24 after frontline IC in the older and more recent eras. Methods: Outcomes after frontline IC were evaluated in 5 independent cohorts that included over 3000 patients in total: Mayo/Iowa MER prospective cohort, BC Cancer retrospective population-based cohort, US 12-center retrospective cohort, Swedish Lymphoma Registry, and Danish National Lymphoma Registry. For each cohort, 2 treatment eras were defined based on cohort-specific shifts in treatment patterns (Table 1). Overall survival (OS) after diagnosis and after achieving EFS24 were compared to the background age- and sex-matched general population using a standardized mortality ratio (SMR). Cumulative incidences of cause-specific deaths were analyzed using a competing risk model. Results: In the MER cohort, patients treated in Era M1 (2002-2009; n=147) and Era M2 (2010-2015; n=153) both had inferior OS compared to the general US population. A lower SMR in Era M2 vs M1 (2.25 vs 3.46) suggests a narrower gap in OS compared to the general US population. Lymphoma was the leading cause of death in both eras. In Era M1, patients who achieved EFS24 still had inferior OS compared to the general US population (SMR=2.40, 95% CI 1.76-3.19), and lymphoma remained the leading cause of death. For patients in Era M2 who achieved EFS24, the difference in OS compared to the general US population was not statistically significant with current follow-up (SMR=1.43, 95% CI 0.93-2.09), and lymphoma was no longer the leading cause of death (Table 2). In the BC cohort, patients treated in Era B2 (6/2013-2019; n=188) vs Era B1 (2003-5/2013; n=250) had a narrower gap in OS compared to the general British Columbia population (SMR 4.53 vs 6.69). Lymphoma was the leading cause of death in both eras. For patients achieving EFS24, the gap in OS was narrower in Era B2 vs B1 (SMR 3.56 vs 4.99). After achieving EFS24, lymphoma was the single leading cause of death for patients in Era B1 but not in Era B2 (Table 2). In the US 12-center cohort, patients treated in Era U1 (2002-2011; n=312) and Era U2 (2012-2016; n=417) both had inferior OS compared to the general US population (SMR 2.68 and 2.92, respectively). In patients who achieved EFS24, with current follow up, the difference in OS compared to the general US population was statistically significant in Era U1 (SMR=2.01, 95% CI 1.50-2.64) but not in Era U2 (SMR=1.44, 95% CI 0.82-2.34). Lymphoma was not the leading cause of death after achieving EFS24 (Table 2). In the Swedish cohort, the gap in OS compared to the general Swedish population was narrower in Era S2 (2013-2018; n=439) vs S1 (2006-2012; n=442), both after frontline IC (SMR 4.8 vs 5.4) and after achieving EFS24 (SMR 2.6 vs 3.4). After achieving EFS24, lymphoma was the leading cause of death for patients in Era S1 but not in Era S2 (Table 2). In the Danish cohort, patients treated in Era D2 (2014-2020; n=370) vs Era D1 (2004-2013; n=461) had a slightly narrower gap in OS compared to the general Danish population (SMR 1.90 vs 2.10). For patients who achieved EFS24, those in Era D1 still had inferior OS compared to the general Danish population (SMR=1.44, 95% CI 1.22-1.68), but the OS difference compared to the general Danish population in Era D2 was not statistically significant (SMR=1.27, 95% CI 0.92-1.72) with current follow-up (Table 2). Cause of death data were not available in this cohort. Conclusion: Survival in patients with MCL who achieved EFS24 after frontline IC improved in the more recent treatment era and moved closer to the background expected survival. After achieving EFS24, lymphoma-related mortality was no longer the leading cause of death in the more recent era. EFS24 following frontline treatment may become a critical endpoint for predicting subsequent outcomes in patients with MCL in the modern era.

Background: Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a standard-of-care first-line (1L) therapy for older or unfit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). The SHINE trial compared BR with rituximab maintenance plus ibrutinib vs placebo in patients ≥65 years old and showed that the ibrutinib arm had significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS; median 80.6 vs 52.9 months) but similar overall survival (OS; 57% vs 55% at 7 years) compared to the placebo arm. Whether sequential treatment with BR in 1L and a Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) in second-line (2L) can result in a similar cumulative PFS compared to 1L BR plus BTKi combination therapy is unknown. To provide insight to this question, we modeled observational data to evaluate MCL outcomes after 1L BR and 2L BTKi therapy in the BTKi era. Methods: Patients with MCL who received 1L BR with or without rituximab maintenance in 2014-2020 at one of the 27 participating centers were included. Exclusion criteria included participation in the SHINE or ECHO trials, any additional 1L therapy other than BR (with or without rituximab maintenance), and stem cell transplant consolidation after 1L BR. Baseline characteristics, treatment, and follow-up data were abstracted by chart review. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as time from index line treatment start to the first event (progression, relapse, retreatment, or death). OS was defined as time from index line treatment start to death. Using an intention-to-treat (ITT) framework, EFS2 was defined as time from 1L BR start to progression, relapse, or retreatment following 2L BTKi treatment or death. Patients who received a non-BTKi treatment at 2L were censored for EFS2 at 2L treatment start; living patients without an event following 1L BR or 2L BTKi were censored for EFS2 at last follow-up. Results: A total of 618 patients with MCL who received 1L BR in 2014-2020 were included. The median age was 71 (IQR 65-76) years, and 447 (72%) were male. 59 (11%) patients had an ECOG PS ≥2, 566 (93%) had stage III-IV disease, and simplified MIPI was low in 105 (21%), intermediate in 200 (39%), and high in 202 (40%) patients. The median follow-up following 1L BR start was 57.4 (95% CI 53.8-63.2) months. Response data were available in 580 patients, and the best ORR was 92% (79% complete response [CR] and 13% partial response [PR]). 258 (42%) patients received rituximab maintenance. As of last follow-up, 255 patients were alive and in remission after 1L BR, 92 patients died without 2L therapy, and 271 patients received a 2L therapy. The median EFS was 34.1 (95% CI 31.0-40.0) months. The median OS was 97.8 (95% CI 81.2-NA) months, the 5-year OS rate was 58.6% (95% CI 54.4-63.2), and the 7-year OS rate was 56.7% (95% CI 52.4-61.5) (Fig 1). Among the 271 patients who started a 2L treatment, 203 (75%) received a BTKi at 2L - 101 (50%) ibrutinib, 76 (37%) acalabrutinib, and 26 (13%) zanubrutinib. The median follow-up following 2L BTKi start was 38.5 (95% CI 31.3-45.1) months. Response data were available in 171 patients, and the best ORR was 64% (36% CR, 28% PR). The median EFS was 10.7 (95% CI 7.7-14.0) months, and the median OS was 24.8 (95% CI 17.3-33.1) months with 2L BTKi therapy (Fig 2). By ITT analysis, the median EFS2 following 1L BR and 2L BTKi was 72.1 (95% CI 56.7-97.8) months (Fig 1). A subset analysis of patients aged ≥65 years (n=471; 198 [42%] received rituximab maintenance) showed similar results. The median EFS with 1L BR was 32.7 (95% CI 29.1-36.3) months. The median OS was 81.5 (95% CI 65.0-NA) months, and the 7-year OS rate was 53.3% (95% CI 48.3-58.7). 208 patients received a 2L therapy, 163 (79%) with a BTKi. The median EFS was 11.5 (95% CI 7.6-15.8) months, and the median OS was 21.0 (95% CI 14.0-29.6) months with 2L BTKi therapy. By ITT analysis, the median EFS2 following 1L BR and 2L BTKi was 58.0 (95% CI 50.2-77.0) months. Conclusion: In this multicenter retrospective study, initiation of 1L BR (with or without rituximab maintenance) resulted in a 7-year OS of 57%. Median EFS2 for sequential 1L BR and 2L BTKi was 72.1 months. In context, the SHINE study reported a median PFS of 80.6 months in the BR (with rituximab maintenance) plus ibrutinib arm and a 7-year OS of 57% in the ibrutinib arm and 55% in the placebo arm, where 39% of patients received a BTKi in 2L. Within the constraints of observational data, our results provide support for sequential use of BR in 1L and BTKi in 2L for patients with MCL.

Introduction The Ki-67 index has been previously shown to be prognostic, wherein the cut-off of 30% was associated with inferior survival outcomes (Determann O et al, Blood 2008) in newly diagnosed MCL patients (pts). However, this cut-off determination was made in pts treated with CHOP/R-CHOP as the first-line treatment, controlled only for MIPI, and predates the advent of novel agents. Short diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI ≤ 14 days) was recently shown to be prognostic in newly diagnosed MCL but its association with Ki-67 is unknown. We sought to determine the optimal Ki-67 cut-off in MCL and its prognostic relevance in the modern era. Methods This is a pooled analysis of 2 large datasets, one prospective (CALGB 50403) and one retrospective (MCL real world study [MCL-RWS]). CALGB is now part of the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. CALGB 50403 is a phase II randomized study wherein newly diagnosed MCL pts received intensive induction chemoimmunotherapy (IIC) followed by autologous transplant, and posttransplant rituximab. The MCL-RWS included adult pts (≥18 years [yrs]) with MCL treated from 2000 to 2017 at 12 participating US sites. Pts from sites in the MCL-RWS that enrolled on CALGB 50403 were excluded. Ki-67 was scored by central review in 10% increments in the CALGB 50403 and per institutional standard in the MCL-RWS. We assessed Ki-67 as a continuous variable and used a restricted quadratic spline fit to find an optimal cut-off. We looked at the associations between Ki-67 and other known/ established MCL prognostic markers including MIPI and DTI. The outcome parameters were PFS and OS. Time-to-event endpoints were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard methods. Results Among the 793 pts (n=666, MCL-RWS and n=127, CALGB 50403) in the pooled analysis, Ki-67 was available in 385 pts (311 from MCL-RWS and 74 from CALGB 50403). The median OS (mOS) and PFS (mPFS) in the entire cohort (n=793) was 11.8 years and 4.7 years, respectively. The two groups (gps), those with and without Ki-67 data, were well balanced including MIPI and DTI. The median age was 62 yrs (range, 32-88), 81% males, 94% with ECOG performance status (PS) 0-1 and 84% with stage 4. We found a Ki-67 cut-off of 50% to be optimal as the relative hazard of death rises after 50%. Pts in the Ki-67 &gt;50% gp had significantly higher proportion with short DTI (36% vs 17%, p&lt;0.001), ECOG PS ≥2 (12% vs 5%, p=0.02), elevated LDH (58% vs 39%, p=0.005), and MIPI ≥6.2 (38% vs 20%, p=0.007) compared to Ki-67 of ≤50%. Ki-67 &gt;50% was associated with significantly inferior PFS with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.10 (95%CI 1.50-2.92) compared to Ki-67 ≤50% with a mPFS of 2.1 vs 5.3 yrs, respectively, regardless of the age (young [≤65 yrs], 2.6 vs 5.3 yrs or old [&gt;65 yrs], 1.1 vs 5.4 yrs) or receipt of IIC (2.2 vs 5.9 yrs). Figure 1 shows the statistically significant difference in PFS between the Ki-67 gps of ≤10%, &gt;10% to &lt;30%, ≥30 to ≤50%, and &gt;50%. Ki-67 &gt;50% remained prognostic for PFS in multivariable analysis (MVA) after adjusting for significant variables in univariable analysis (UVA) including short DTI, ECOG PS ≥2, stage 4, elevated LDH, and MIPI ≥6.2 with adjusted HR (aHR) 2.19, 95%CI 1.38-3.48, p &lt;0.001. Ki-67 &gt;50% was associated with significantly inferior OS with a HR of 2.10 (95%CI 1.33-3.32) compared to Ki-67 ≤50% with a mOS of 9.4 yrs vs not reached (NR), respectively, regardless of the age or receipt of IIC. Figure 2 shows the statistically significant difference in OS between the Ki-67 gps of ≤10%, &gt;10% to &lt;30%, ≥30 to ≤50%, and &gt;50%. Ki-67 &gt;50% was not prognostic for OS in MVA after adjusting for significant variables in the UVA (MIPI and sex), aHR 1.79, 95% CI 0.92-3.49, p=0.08. Similar findings were seen in multivariable analysis with Ki-67 &gt;30%, which showed no prognostic significance (aHR 1.46, 95%CI 0.82-2.58, p=0.19). Because of disparate datasets, we performed sensitivity analysis looking at the prognostic relevance of in individual datasets (CALGB 50403 and MCL-RWS) and found Ki67 &gt;50% was prognostic for PFS and OS in both of the datasets consistent with the primary analysis. Conclusions This study evaluating the optimal Ki-67 cut off for pts with newly diagnosed MCL in the modern era found that Ki-67 &gt; 50% was prognostic for PFS but not OS in MVA. A potential reason for the lack of prognostic relevance for OS in this more recent dataset is the availability of effective options at relapse. We also found that short DTI was associated with high Ki-67 gp which is a novel finding.

Abstract The prognostic relevance of diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) in patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is unknown. Hence, we sought to evaluate the impact of DTI on outcomes in MCL using 3 large datasets (1) the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Specialized Program of Research Excellence Molecular Epidemiology Resource, (2) patients enrolled in the ALL Age Asthma Cohort/CALGB 50403, and (3) a multisitecohort of patients with MCL. Patients were a priori divided into 2 groups, 0 to 14 days (short DTI) and 15 to 60 days (long DTI). The patients in whom observation was deemed appropriate were excluded. One thousand ninety-seven patients newly diagnosed with MCL and available DTI were included in the study. The majority (73%) had long DTI (n=797). Patients with short DTI had worse eastern cooperative oncology group performance status (ECOG PS ≥2), higher lactate dehydrogenase, bone marrow involvement, more frequent B symptoms, higher MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI ≥6.2), and were less likely to receive intensive induction therapy than long DTI group. The median progression-free survival (2.5 years vs 4.8 years, p&lt;0.0001) and overall survival (7.8 years vs. 11.8 years, p&lt;0.0001) were significantly inferior in the short DTI group than the long DTI cohort and remained significant for progression-free survival and overall survival in multivariable analysis. We show that the DTI is an important prognostic factor in patients newly diagnosed with MCL and is strongly associated with adverse clinical factors and poor outcomes. DTI should be reported in all the patients newly diagnosed with MCL who are enrolling in clinical trials and steps must be taken to ensure selection bias is avoided.

Abstract Background: CD19 CAR T cell therapies have demonstrated high initial complete remission (CR) rates of 70-80% in relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) with durable remissions observed in a subset of patients. Despite the remarkable initial CR rate, relapses occur in 20-45% of patients and with increasing use of CD19 CAR T cell therapies in ALL, a key remaining clinical question is the role of post-CAR HCT. Methods: Patients up to 26 years treated with the commercial (i.e., tisagenlecleucel) or investigational CD19 CAR T cell products from 2014 to 2019 in the United States were included. The objectives were to examine the impact of post-CAR HCT on mortality, disease-free survival (DFS), leukemia relapse, GVHD and transplant related mortality among HCT recipients. The intent of HCT was analyzed as consolidation when there was no evidence of post-CAR T cell relapse prior to HCT. Cox regression multivariable analysis used HCT as time-dependent variable along with age, performance status and time from diagnosis to CAR-T cell infusion to evaluate its impact on outcomes. Results: We identified 347 patients who received CD19 CAR T cells from 86 centers. Median age was 13 (range, 0.4-26 years) with 39% of patients from Hispanic or Latino ethnic origin. Patients were high risk and heavily pretreated; 56% had poor cytogenetics, 51% had ≥3 line of prior therapies and 34% had prior HCT. Most of the patients (74%) received tisagenlecleucel. Disease burden at the time of CAR T cell infusion included morphologic disease (≥5% bone marrow blasts) (65%), measurable residual disease (MRD) positive (16%) and negative CR (18%). CRS of all grades was observed in 57.6% and grade 3-4 CRS in 13%; neurotoxicity of all grades was observed in 25% and grade 3-4 in 8%. With a median follow-up of 12.7 months (range, 2.2-60.3), DFS at 3, 6 and 12 months following CAR T cell infusion was 80.9% % (95% CI: 76.6%-84.9%), 71.2% (95% CI: 66.1%-76.0%) and 57.6% (95% CI: 51.8%-63.3%), respectively. OS at 3, 6 and 12 months was 93.6% (95% CI: 90.8%-96.0%), 89.8% (95% CI: 86.4%-92.8%) and 79.4% (95% CI: 74.7%-83.6%), respectively. Incidences of relapse without censoring at subsequent HCT at month 3, 6 and 12 were 18.5% (95% CI: 14.5%-22.8%), 28.2% (95% CI: 23.5%-33.3%), and 40.6% (95% CI: 35.0%-46.3%), respectively. Of the 347 patients who received CD19 CAR therapy, 62 patients (18%) had subsequent HCT in CR as a consolidation post-CAR with a median time from CAR T to HCT of 4.7 months (range, 1.1-18.6). 36% had a prior HCT (i.e., pre-CAR), 87% received myeloablative regimen and among the 57 patients with MRD evaluation 56 were negative (98%). Frequencies of post-CAR HCT did not change during the 5-year study period. Overall, transplant related mortality (TRM) at month 6 was 8.9% (95% CI: 3.6-16.1), and grade 2-4 acute GvHD was observed in 38.0% (95% CI: 28.4-48.2) of patients at month 6. Post-CAR HCT used as a consolidation was associated with lower relapse (hazard ratio (HR) 0.37; p=0.037) but no significant impact on mortality (HR 0.75, p=0.51) or DFS (HR=0.46, p=0.057). When accounting for any HCT performed after CAR T cell, HCT was associated with higher mortality (Figure). Conclusions: This is the largest clinical series to date examining the impact of post-CAR HCT on clinical outcome of R/R B-ALL patients. We found that 18% of the patients had post-CAR HCT as a consolidation therapy with a favorable safety profile of 8.9% TRM rate despite a prior transplant rate of 36%. Consolidation HCT after CAR T cell resulted in significant reduction in leukemia relapse with a trend towards better DFS. Consolidation HCT seem safe and incurred a benefit by reducing disease relapse. Further studies in understanding the role of consolidation HCT as planned, or post-CAR T cell response-based strategy or treatment for early B-cell recovery are needed to further define the best candidates for HCT after tisagenlecleucel . Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Park: BMS: Consultancy; Affyimmune: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Curocel: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Minerva: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; PrecisionBio: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Artiva: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy. Nikiforow: Kite/Gilead: Other: ad HOC Advisory Boards; Novartis: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Iovance: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK): Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards. Hu: Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Ahmed: Merck: Research Funding; Tessa Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seagen: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cairo: Servier: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sobi: Speakers Bureau; Omeros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nektar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dholaria: Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; MEI: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Grover: Kite: Other: Advisory Board; Genentech: Research Funding; ADC: Other: Advisory Board; Tessa: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Locke: Gerson Lehrman Group: Consultancy; Emerging Therapy Solutions: Consultancy; Moffitt Cancer Center: Patents & Royalties: field of cellular immunotherapy; Calibr: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Wugen: Consultancy, Other; Legend Biotech: Consultancy, Other; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Iovance Biotherapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Novartis: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; GammaDelta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Takeda: Consultancy, Other; EcoR1: Consultancy; Cowen: Consultancy; Umoja: Consultancy, Other; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding; Cellular Biomedicine Group: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Mussetti: GILEAD: Other: Clinical trials participation, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria, Other: Clinical trials participation. Pulsipher: Jasper Therapeutics: Honoraria; Adaptive: Research Funding; Equillium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qayed: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medexus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mesoblast: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Other. Reshef: Gilead, BMS, Precision, Immatics, Atara, Takeda, Shire, Pharmacyclics, Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead and Novartis: Honoraria; Bayer, BMS, Regeneron, TScan, Synthekine, Atara, Jasper: Consultancy. Rizzieri: Kite: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Acrotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AROG: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mustang: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Sharma: Vertex Pharmaceuticals/CRISPR Therapeutics: Other: Salary support paid to institution; Medexus Inc: Consultancy; CRISPR Therapeutics: Other, Research Funding; Vindico Medical Education: Honoraria; Spotlight Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Salary support paid to institution. Schultz: BMS DSMB: Other: payment; Sobi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Turtle: Century Therapeutics Ad hoc advisory boards (last 12 months): Nektar Therapeutics, Allogene, PACT Pharma, Astra Zeneca, Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eureka Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caribou Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; T-CURX: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Myeloid Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ArsenalBio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Minerva: Other; Nektar Therapeutics: Other; Juno Therapeutics/BMS: Other: Payments, Patents & Royalties: Patent licensed to Juno Therapeutics.; Precision Biosciences, Eureka Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, Myeloid Therapeutics, ArsenalBio: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Pasquini: Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Perales: MorphoSys: Honoraria; Cidara: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria, Other; Sellas Life Sciences: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Omeros: Honoraria; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other; Equilium: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Other; NexImmune: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria, Other; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other; Merck: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Medigene: Honoraria.

Abstract We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis across 10 US academic medical centers to evaluate treatment patterns and outcomes in patients age ≥60 years with classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) from 2010-2018. Among 244 eligible patients, median age was 68, 63% had advanced stage (III/IV), 96% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) 0-2, and 12% had documented loss of ≥1 activity of daily living (ADL). Medical comorbidities were assessed by the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale–Geriatric (CIRS-G), where n = 44 (18%) had total scores ≥10. Using multivariable Cox models, only ADL loss predicted shorter progression-free (PFS; hazard ratio [HR] 2.13, P = .007) and overall survival (OS; HR 2.52, P = .02). Most patients (n = 203, 83%) received conventional chemotherapy regimens, including doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD; 56%), AVD (14%), and AVD with brentuximab vedotin (BV; 9%). Compared to alternative therapies, conventional regimens significantly improved PFS (HR 0.46, P = .0007) and OS (HR 0.31, P = .0003). Survival was similar following conventional chemotherapy in those ages 60-69 vs ≥70: PFS HR 0.88, P = .63; OS HR 0.73, P = .55. Early treatment discontinuation due to toxicity was more common with CIRS-G ≥10 (28% vs 12%, P = .016) or documented geriatric syndrome (28% vs 13%, P = .02). A competing risk analysis demonstrated improved disease-related survival with conventional therapy (HR 0.29, P = .02) and higher mortality from causes other than disease or treatment with high CIRS-G or geriatric syndromes. This study suggests conventional chemotherapy regimens remain a standard of care in fit older patients with cHL, and highlights the importance of geriatric assessments in defining fitness for cHL therapy going forward.

AbstractIntroductionWhile most patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) receive therapy shortly after diagnosis, a subset of patients with indolent‐behaving disease can safely defer treatment. In this subgroup, we evaluated the importance of treatment intensity in patients with MCL who defer initial therapy.MethodsOut of 1134 patients with MCL from 12 academic centers, we analyzed 219 patients who initiated therapy at least 90 days after diagnosis. Patients who received induction with high‐dose cytarabine and/or autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in first remission were considered to have received intensive therapy (n = 88) while all other approaches were non‐intensive (n = 131).ResultsThere was no difference in progression‐free (PFS; P = .224) or overall survival (OS; P = .167) in deferred patients who received non‐intensive vs. intensive therapy. Additionally, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were performed for PFS and OS. Treatment at an academic center (HR 0.43, P = .015) was associated with improved OS in both univariate and multivariate models, while intensity of treatment was not associated with improved OS in either model.ConclusionsThese results indicate that intensified initial treatment is not associated with improved survival after deferring initial therapy, although prospective studies are needed to determine which of these patients with MCL may benefit from intensive therapy.